[06:51] <sync350> Hey guys, very new to triaging, was looking through bugs, is 1271340 something that should be marked wishlist?
[08:08] <chetan> I am very new to ubuntu. but I am very enthusiastic and want to learn how to debug ubuntu programs...
[08:09] <chetan> my own gnome-shell has some bug and would like to solve them. Please let me know a good starting point where i can learn on how to debug programs
[09:10] <chetan> anyone?
[12:15] <brainwash> I'm just curious.. the importance of bug 1222021 got reduced from HIGH to MEDIUM, is that correct?
[12:15] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 1222021 in xfce4-power-manager (Debian) "[SRU] xfce4-power-manager does not inhibit systemd from handling buttons and lid events" [Unknown,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1222021
[12:16] <brainwash> the user does not want the system to suspend on lid close because of bad support -> possible data loss
[12:17] <brainwash> the user wants to be asked what power action should be performed, when he presses the power button, but the system simply powers off -> possible data loss
[12:17] <brainwash> on top of that, this bug affects almost every xubuntu user
[12:20] <brainwash> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Bug%20importances
[13:53] <hggdh> brainwash: it does not really matter, a fix has been committed to Saucy already
[14:19] <brainwash> hggdh: it matters to me, what would be the correct importance in this case?
[14:22] <brainwash> and it did matter to person who changed the importance (although the fix has been committed already)
[14:22] <brendand> hggdh, actually the person who changed the importance didn't follow good practice
[14:22] <brendand> hggdh, you should always explain major changes to a bug
[14:23] <brendand> although speaking of which, i have an lplib script that does set importance without explaining :/ but only unset ones :P
[14:23] <brendand> no-one's ever complained
[14:24] <brainwash> I'm just here to understand things better, did not feel like starting a discussion about the importance level in the bug report
[14:25] <brainwash> you are right, an explanation would help in this case
[14:25] <brendand> brainwash, well you have :)
[14:25] <brendand> brainwash, anyway because they didn't explain why, we can all only guess
[14:26] <brendand> brainwash, there are a lot of possibilities
[14:26] <brendand> brainwash, only way to know for sure is to ask them
[14:26] <brainwash> thanks for clarifying :)
[14:53] <hggdh> in general, ALL changes to bug importance and status should commented on.
[14:56] <hggdh> brendand: and yes, I know he did not follow the reccomended practice... after all, I am still one of the admins on bug triaging ;-)
[14:56] <hggdh> (bowing, of course, to the incomparable bdmurray ;-)
[14:57] <brendand> hggdh, it's a pity launchpad doesn't enforce it
[14:59] <hggdh> yes,, it is. Unfortunately, I do not see how we could enforce it without a semantic analyser
[14:59] <hggdh> brainwash: anyway, you *can* comment on the bug, and ask why was the importance reduced. I would be interesting to know
[16:42] <brendand> hggdh, late reply - it could put a dialog in the way of changing status/importance, requiring a comment to be entered. that's unlikely to be done now though
[16:57] <hggdh> brendand: yes, we could, but we cannot guarantee the comment entered has anything to do with the actions performed...
[18:45] <Mapley> Hey, since I haven't rceived a response for nearly two weeks, I'm just going to ask this here. About two weeks ago, I filed a bug for Simple Scan, requesting that the GTK+ toolbar utilize the devices icon "scanner" instead of the application(!) icon on the scan button; see https://bugs.launchpad.net/simple-scan/+bug/1268044 and
[18:45] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 1268044 in Simple Scan "Icon types used by Simple Scan [UI/not sane]" [Undecided,New]
[18:45] <Mapley> https://bugs.launchpad.net/simple-scan/+bug/1268044/+attachment/3945792/+files/SimpleScan-UseDeviceIcon.png
[18:45] <Mapley> Thoughts?
[18:46] <Mapley> I thought it was rather illogical, imho, for a /toolbar/ to use the /application/ icon. :S
[18:47] <teward> Mapley, lets keep in mind you've filed against the upstream project and not the package in Ubuntu
[18:47] <teward> the speed that upstream can get back to you is... um... unpredictable
[18:47] <teward> s/upstream/upstreams/
[18:47] <teward> (where "upstream" means the project for the program)
[18:47] <Mapley> yeah, I know.
[18:48] <teward> my thoughts are "It's not a bug filed against the Ubuntu package." but I'm semi-distracted :p
[18:48] <Mapley> I'm not even using Ubuntu - I just thought 'lp, gnome, whatever, gimpnet support's kinda slow so I might as well ask here'
[18:48] <Mapley> I'll pop over onto gimpnet now, though.
[18:48] <Mapley> Thanks anyway.